The justification for the Whitner pick is that he's a playmaker and it's a position of need, so it doesn't matter where he was predicted to go. Marv wanted him and Marv got him- so what if it was 5-10 picks early?.
But Marv also wanted McCargo. According to that logic, why wait until our second round pick or worry about being able to trade back in? Why not just take him at #8? I mean, he's our guy, right? He fills a position of need, right? Who cares if the "experts" say he's late 1st-early 2nd round? We shouldn't take the chance that someone will take him in the 32 picks or so between our first and our second, right?
NO picked a S in the 2nd round (their 2nd pick), so obviously that was a need for them- why not just take Huff at 2? Who cares if the "experts" had him in the 5-10 range? They need a safety, right?
Either of those moves would have been universally criticized. But it uses the same logic as the Whitner pick.
But Marv also wanted McCargo. According to that logic, why wait until our second round pick or worry about being able to trade back in? Why not just take him at #8? I mean, he's our guy, right? He fills a position of need, right? Who cares if the "experts" say he's late 1st-early 2nd round? We shouldn't take the chance that someone will take him in the 32 picks or so between our first and our second, right?
NO picked a S in the 2nd round (their 2nd pick), so obviously that was a need for them- why not just take Huff at 2? Who cares if the "experts" had him in the 5-10 range? They need a safety, right?
Either of those moves would have been universally criticized. But it uses the same logic as the Whitner pick.
Comment